Pair Arrested After Telling Lawyer Jokes

fembots writes "Two men were arrested for telling lawyer jokes while standing in line leading into First District Court. A spokesman for the Nassau courts said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court."

Comments

Re:I dunno, something smells fishy...

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yeah, according to them. According to the court:

But Dan Bagnuola, a spokesman for the Nassau courts, said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court.

"They were being abusive and they were causing a disturbance," Bagnuola said. "They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' and they were causing a disturbance. And they were asked on several occasions to act in an orderly manner, not to interfere with the operation of the court."

Frankly, they sound like jackasses. Dunno wtf their point was, but it certainly wasn't to have a conversation with each other.

Re:Slow news day?

[tomhudson]

The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.

The only shithead was the lawyer, who probably also bitched and whined when the TRex at the lawyer in Jurassic Park and the audience cheered http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_37.htm

Quote from the article:

In all the movies of recent years, there have been few surer audience-pleasing scenes than the moment in Jurassic Park where the dinosaur eats the lawyer. In my theater and I suspect yours too, the audience burst into laughter and cheers.

... check out this choice list of problems with current law practice from the article ..

* We have enacted countless new laws, we use them to try to control more of life, and these laws are often vague, not clearly spelling out what conduct is wrongful and what the legal consequences might be of overstepping the line.

* We have expanded damage theories to the point that we are willing to countenance the mulcting of defendants of amounts that all previous American generations and the citizens of all foreign countries would consider sheerly fantastic.

* We have liberalized procedure. As long ago as the 1930s we began to embrace the system of notice pleading, in which you can drag someone to court without saying what he may have done wrong. In the 1970s we drastically liberalized discovery, making it far easier to demand the filing cabinets of your opponent. Through the "long-arm" jurisdiction revolution, we liberalized forum-shopping so that you could shop around for whichever judge or jurisdiction is most hostile to your opponent or most slanted toward your own ideological view.

* We liberalized the admission of expert testimony to allow lawyers to keep a scientifically weak case alive by introducing the testimony of partisan, fringe experts whether or not they reflect mainstream thinking in the relevant discipline.

The DMCA, the PATRIOT Act, and SCO's gaming of the system all come to mind.